I am a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston where I founded and direct the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and head the graduate program in space architecture. My background deals extensively with research, planning and design of habitats, structures and other support systems for applications in space and extreme environments on Earth. I have recently written a new book titled "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax". It can be previewed and ordered at www.climateofcorruption.com. Additional information about my book and views can be found on my YouTube address: http://www.youtube.com/climateofcorruption.

No Free Launches: Can Commercial Space Bank On NASA Contracts?

Now that the Space Shuttle has been scuttled and the proposed Ares I Constellation program rocket has been cancelled, NASA has little near-term choice but to rely on the private sector for home-grown astronaut launch and return. And although several companies are intent upon providing those services, American crews may continue to depend upon Russian taxi rides for some time to come.

There are two principal issues. First, uncertain budgets and launch market commitments make NASA an unreliable customer, causing large R&D investments to be very risky. Second, working with NASA imposes contract complexities, schedule delays and added costs that jeopardize business viability. This is particularly true in regard to design control over manned mission flight safety provisions.

The original premise was that private industry can build and operate space transportation vehicles more rapidly, cheaply and flexibly than can government, opening a new era of spaceflight. But the big rub is that while this may be very true, they cannot do so the “government way”. Accordingly, companies are reportedly pushing back against NASA rules establishing how their vehicles must be designed rather than how they must perform. This is analogous to authorizing the Federal Aeronautics Administration to certify the design of airplanes- not just certifying their airworthiness.

Blaming budget uncertainties, NASA has announced that it will postpone their use of private launchers for transporting astronauts until at least 2017. This delay has prompted one prospective customer, Bigelow Aerospace, to lay off 40 of its 90-person staff. The company which plans to operate an orbital habitat or “hotel”, was depending on commercial launch services to ferry users to and from the facility. Bigelow has already placed two reduced-scale inflatable structured prototypes in orbit using Russian rockets, and had hoped to be operational with the real McCoy by 2015.

Although the White House had originally requested more than $800 million annually to support private space taxis, Congressional lawmakers reduced that amount by half. This can be attributed in part to a somewhat tense relationship that has existed between the Obama administration and Congress over space policy for some time. This contention became worse when the White House added more money to the fiscal 2012 budget request for commercial-crew efforts than was authorized in 2011… and less for NASA’s development of its own rocket and capsule for missions beyond Earth’s orbit.

NASA has now shifted to what they regard to be more flexible cost-sharing arrangements with private service suppliers. Termed the “Commercial Crew Integrated Design Contract” (CCIDC), this strategy will modify so-called “Space Act Agreement” funding terms applied in the past to partner with proposed ventures involving Boeing, Orbital Sciences Corp and Space Exploration Technologies Corp. The change will focus upon overall design of the system, rather than on single technological activities and milestones.

Bill Gerstenmaier, who heads NASA’s manned program operations, noted that Congress has attached some strings that could further reduce the budget for commercial rocket development by linking such dollars to the agency’s progress in developing a separate, larger NASA rocket, a development that will also limit NASA’s engineering and design control over the commercial program. The downside, he said is that it “doesn’t ensure that we will get exactly what we need.”

Gerstenmaier estimates that “Based on our previous work, there is a pretty good possibility” that the new acquisition strategy will support at least two contractor teams to finalize and verify their designs. However Congressman Ralph Hall (Rep. TX.), who heads the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, expressed skepticism.He said “Given current federal budget constraints, I continue to be concerned about NASA’s ability to afford contracting with two or more companies to ferry our astronauts to and from the International Space Station.” Instead, Hall favors having two companies team together to jointly develop a more cost-effective plan. Yet he agrees with Bill Gerstenmaier that “NASA cannot impose its safety requirements as would be possible under a normal acquisition.”

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

A fine analysis. The solution is not as elusive as one may think. In October 2010, SpaceNews published my column http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/101011-bridging-space-launch-divide.html that explained how to bridge the space launch divide between commercial (Musk, Allen, Bezos, etc.) and traditional (USG contractors like Boeing) by having the government customers enter into take-or-pay contracts in a progress-payment type auction:

“NASA’s role must instead be honed to act on behalf of the American people as a smart buyer and honest broker. To do so, it needs only two things:

“ An irrevocable commitment, which means a clear timetable, for achieving the nation’s space exploration goals and objectives (spelled out) will forecast the U.S. government’s demand for launch services over the next 30 years. For example, we know (or should know) how much cargo is required for the international space station and how many crew rotations must occur over the next 10 years. If the forecast is not bold enough in some years for the various competing providers, let them all come in to Washington and lobby for more missions to be put on the books, instead of fighting each other and letting gridlock win.

“2) The authority to buy launch services from any qualified provider, subject to reliability.

“Any qualified provider, whatever its political ancestry, can bid for missions on the books (in the forecast) and, under law, the government can make current-year deposits with qualified winning bidders. Naturally, flights that are due to occur soon — say, in two years — would be bid and won by companies that have proven launch capability. Flights further off would see maybe a dozen “new space” companies bidding, and the government would make current-year deposits with the top three or four most-qualified “best value” offers. As the launch dates approach, each year the government would conduct rebids so the competitors could refine their pricing, evidence improved reliability and safety, and win progressively larger cash deposits. Here again, if the current-year cash deposits offered are viewed as too small to interest bidders, let them all lobby for bigger deposits.”

The coming train wreck you so correctly point out is painful because it is so easy to avoid.

No too big secret that NASA has gotten toughest question to fund future & current projects. I’d like to offer you game-changing strategy: One & First among the Key Factors is to become financially independent, space tourism has really great potential to be first having extra incomes, but common mistake of start-ups like SpaceX is the way to excite customers. Ticket to Space is too expensive even for far not poor personas, but fortunately this obstacle can be broken through with lottery schemes to sell tickets + that way makes possible to get many times more income to advance than Just to search wealthy ones. Aforesaid text is only smallest part of the strategy to turn Space Industry from ugly duck to blossoming Swan.

My the best wishes.

P. S. + one wonderful & useful moment must be mentioned: the more NASA will be self-funded, the more money from government will be given to NASA.

You make excellent points, but I think the biggest train wreck hazard is that there are too many political switchmen constantly redirecting the tracks.

In contrast to the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo era when America was galvanized behind a bold national vision, space policies now tend to get reinvented with each new White House and Congressional power cycle. This circumstance is compounded by changing geopolitical and geoeconomic alignments impacting such matters as ISS operations and planning for future collaborative mission initiatives beyond low-Earth orbit.

NASA has become much more a political hostage than visionary leader in these matters. This is clearly evidenced by currently assigned priorities which include Muslim self-esteem-building and guarding the planet against natural climate change.

Yes, I agree with you that a long-term commitment and roadmap is essential. The big question is where that vital leadership and follow-through will come from. Sadly, there is no national space policy that excites public pride, interest and support. Perhaps it’s really not NASA’s fault…it’s ours for not demanding that there be one.